Would G4 acquiring F9 be something that might be a solution for both carriers? F9 has been headed away from the traditional services, DEN hub, and more towards the G4 mode (TTN). F9 and G4 merging would give G4 some newer aircraft to replace the MD-80s. They are starting to bump up against each other in some markets, combining would give them a leg up on their next competitor NK.

(According to Wikipedia)

G4 has 61 MD-80s, F9 has 50 Airbuses. Seems to me G4 gets a chance to totally reorganize to a younger fleet.

In addition to the existing G4 vacation markets in Arizona, Nevada, California, Hawaii and Florida G4 would be able to capitalize on F9's history in Colorado to perhaps start marketing Ski vacations. Similar to their other destinations, weekly services to Colorado ski resorts. Seems like good opportunities to further promote their vacation packages.

I find with most of these true ULCC airlines, you think your saving money but when you add in all the services that you need, it ends up costing almost the same price as an LCC. G4 has seat-assignment at time of booking fees of up to $75!!!, credit card surcharges and a carrier usage fee (which is kind of like NKs charge, for use of the website only way to avoid is to go to the airport)

That being said, it does make sense in the business sense. F9 employees hate the outsourcing of their airport staff just wait till they work for G4)

[Edited 2013-04-02 14:42:01]

Frontier Early Returns Ascent Status| Webmaster of an unoffical TTN page see profile for details

One thing to consider is that while both G4 and F9 are ULCC's, they operate different types of business models. G4 does not offer connections, G4 does not fly international routes, and G4 focuses on selling combined travel packages as opposed to just airfare.

Quoting STT757 (Thread starter):Would G4 acquiring F9 be something that might be a solution for both carriers? F9 has been headed away from the traditional services, DEN hub, and more towards the G4 mode (TTN). F9 and G4 merging would give G4 some newer aircraft to replace the MD-80s.

In short: Not really. Using the F9 fleet to "replace the MD-80s" would imply a much, much smaller combined carrier. And G4 doesn't really need to buy F9 to acquire aircraft; there are plenty of A319's available at attractive prices for G4 to pick up on its own. In fact, G4 management said so much when they announced the addition of the Airbus to their fleet. As the NEO's start to roll off the line, values of the OEO A32X aircraft in service will decline more rapidly (as will happen with the 737NG-to-737MAX transition), so G4 will have further opportunities to acquire good-quality used Airbuses at advantageous prices.

As things currently stand, G4 would be well-served by putting their A319's into high-utilization lines of flying and using the MD-80's primarily on shorter routes and peak-flying days. The lease costs of the A319's are significantly higher than G4's ownership costs for the MD-80's, but this is counterbalanced by the A319's lower block-hour cost (also keeping in mind that there is higher revenue potential with the MD-80, since it has more seats).

Both airlines seem to be very different creatures (pardon the pun). Frontier functions as a traditional airline, hub and spoke and some point to point. Allegiant functions has a scheduled (frequencies) in response to demand airline. I think with the merger and creation of mega carrier, there is and will be room for smaller nitch players and start/ups.

I see it a little differently, though I'm not sure it matters as how I see it doesn't mean it would work.

F9 operates hub-and-spoke, point-to-point, and Apple Vacations-type scheduled/charter services. Quite a blend of operations, and a pretty decent mix of each. AFAIK, blending the vacations-oriented G4 with the more tradionally-weighted F9 might give a really nice hybrid mix for the combined system. I don't think you'd need to eliminate one or the other necessarily either - G4 could keep doing what G4 does, with F9 transitioning some of the Apple-type stuff to G4 perhaps.

I can see a lot of synergies between the two in station costs/staffing, fleet training/maintenance (Airbus), and sharing of the vacation services and expertise of G4 but morphed onto the F9 system as well.

With fleet, I'd imagine F9 taking on the 80 NEO's, with their existing CEO's (all owned anyhow) moving over to G4. This woud keep the newer, more efficient (and expensive) fleet flying higher-frequency schedules at Frontier, while the older, more maintenance driven and less efficient (but less expensive to own) fleet would fly the lower utilization schedules of G4.

The travel arm that currently sells G4 itineraries could just as easily sell Frontier itineraries. At select airports, there could be a limited option of interlining, at least as a trial. I see this as limited - perhaps a few cities would have G4 service to DEN in the winter for vacations, but offering connections to F9 onward points.

I've pondered these things before so I'm not saying anything new or original. I think one big impediment would be the $150M (or whatever it is) judgment against F9 by Republic that they have deferred due to acquiring F9. Unless Bedford wants to explain to the shareholders of Republic why he is writing that off, he will need to get at least get that plus change for Frontier, and that doesn't include any Frontier debt assumptions, repaying Republic for the NEO delivery positions or any deposits, etc. Those could be even more insurmountable obstacles than the logistical questions.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 7):I've pondered these things before so I'm not saying anything new or original. I think one big impediment would be the $150M (or whatever it is) judgment against F9 by Republic that they have deferred due to acquiring F9. Unless Bedford wants to explain to the shareholders of Republic why he is writing that off, he will need to get at least get that plus change for Frontier, and that doesn't include any Frontier debt assumptions, repaying Republic for the NEO delivery positions or any deposits, etc. Those could be even more insurmountable obstacles than the logistical questions.